If you use emacs and you find git difficult then please try out magit [2]. I actually really like the git cli, but I use magit a fair amount also. Plus, emacs is awsome :-P
First of all, to checkout a branch, you don't simply select its name. You need to write a freaking configuration file to tell CC what you want to checkout. And it is entirely possible to accidentally write that configuration file in such a way that you'll have half of repository checked out from one version of code, while the other half is checked out from another version of code.
Then there is history of changes. Or in case of ClearCase: histories of changes. Because there are many, in fact as many as there are files. Yes, each file has its own history of changes, completely independent from other files. So if you make a commit which changes 10 files, CC will create separate commit for each of those 10 files, each with the same commit message. Needless to say, browsing history with same commit messages repeated tens or hundred of times, is quite an adventure.
Oh, and because of that, it is not possible to simply checkout some old version of code. If you are lucky, you will have put labels on all files of needed version of code, so then you can checkout that label. Otherwise the only option is to checkout based on dates of commits, and hope that your provided date won't actually cut any commit in half.
Having to manage your config specs and the inability to go back to old versions of your software (or in fact just have something reproducible for your build servers) unless you meticulously label everything makes Clearcase of course barely useable. It gets extra interesting if you use multi-site Clearcase and your replicas stop synching.
I remember that the corruption was silent. That was bad. But nowhere as bad as Clearcase was in general.
Clearcase is like the bastard child of a barrel of horseshit and a mountain of self-inflicted hurt. One had to use "views" of which there were two types, and some kind of special mount point where the view loaded things from a source repository, given a "config specification" which defined from which versions (branches?) files should be loaded. Making a branch took a huge amount of time for a non-trivial source repository. It was "take a coffee" long time. Sometimes the views went bad. I don't luckily even remember all the problems, this was over 10 years ago.
The config specs seemed somehow to defy logic. Something always broke with them. Usually one just copied premade config specs made by someone with a transcended mind who seemed to have somehow figured out the underlying logic.
And... I can't just put to words how bad Clearcase was (is?). That is my experience with it, and I will without a doubt choose Git over VSS, SVN, CVS, RCS, Clearcase and whatnot any day.
By the way, I also have experienced Visual Source Safe silent corruption -- horrible!
In 1995, it was state of the art and revolutionary. Today a bit clunky and off the mainstream. Compared to CVS it was a very sophisticated tool.
The 'visual tree view' it provides is still very good, even today.
(note: i don't really like it and will not mind changing to a different system sometime this century)